is there any archaeological evidence to suggest Genesis was to be taken anything.....

[Pauliesonne]

but literally?

[Oolon Colluphid]

is there any archaeological evidence to suggest Genesis was to be taken anything.....but literally?

There is no evidence of any kind that would suggest it is anything but a myth. So, I guess the answer is, nope!

[ceo_esq]

How would archaeological evidence be used to establish the subjective intent of the author of a text? More to the point, what kind of archaeological findings could constitute evidence for the proposition that the author of Genesis intended it to be taken non-literally?


There is no evidence of any kind that would suggest it is anything but a myth. So, I guess the answer is, nope!

Oolon, how does the absence of evidence that Genesis is literally accurate constitute an absence of evidence that the author of Genesis intended for it to be taken non-literally (which is what Paulisonne asked)?

[Pauliesonne]

If there is no evidence to believe that the people who wrote genesis thought it was'nt litteral, then what possible reason do so-called progressive christians have to think that Genesis was'nt supposed to be taken litterally.

[Shevek-72]

How would archaeological evidence be used to establish the subjective intent of the author of a text? More to the point, what kind of archaeological findings could constitute evidence for the proposition that the author of Genesis intended it to be taken non-literally?


Well, if they'd dig up a first edition containing the disclaimer "The events described in this work are purely fictional and all resemblences to living or....". That would be convincing.
Or a letter from the author "Hey, Abraham, thanks for letting me use your great idea about the women made from a rib..."
:D

[ceo_esq]

Well, if they'd dig up a first edition containing the disclaimer "The events described in this work are purely fictional and all resemblences to living or....". That would be convincing.
Or a letter from the author "Hey, Abraham, thanks for letting me use your great idea about the women made from a rib..."
:D

Excellent! Seriously, though, that's about the extent of the relevance of archaeological discoveries to this question, as far as I can see.

[Pauliesonne]

Then WHAT reason is there for those so-called progressive christians to think that Genesis shoud'nt be taken litterally?!?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oolon, how does the absence of evidence that Genesis is literally accurate constitute an absence of evidence that the author of Genesis intended for it to be taken non-literally (which is what Paulisonne asked)?

Obviously, I cannot be the arbiter of anyone's intentions when they put quill to parchment. That said, I find it difficult to lend any credence to a text whose provenance is suspect. Who wrote it? When did they write it? No-one was witness to the events prior to the creation of, Adam, so where did the author get his/her information? Surely you can appreciate the dilemma?

[ChristineR]

Because if you take it literally, it's full of mistakes. God doesn't make mistakes.

[ceo_esq]

Then WHAT reason is there for those so-called progressive christians to think that Genesis shoud'nt be taken litterally?!?

That's a good question, but for the sake of accuracy, it should be pointed out that thinking Genesis should, at least to some extent, not be taken literally is the traditional Christian view, not the progressive one. It goes back at least to Origen in the early 3rd century. The Christian fundamentalist view is the relatively newfangled one.

Obviously, I cannot be the arbiter of anyone's intentions when they put quill to parchment. That said, I find it difficult to lend any credence to a text whose provenance is suspect. Who wrote it? When did they write it? No-one was witness to the events prior to the creation of, Adam, so where did the author get his/her information? Surely you can appreciate the dilemma.

These questions do not seem strictly relevant to the question posed in the OP, which I interpreted as referring to intentions. Nevertheless, I daresay the response offered by Christianity is that God was a witness to the events prior to the appearance of the first human beings, and that the information was transmitted directly or indirectly to the authors of Genesis. The likelihood of this thesis, obviously, seems remote, although I suppose I'm not in a position to refute it.



Because if you take it literally, it's full of mistakes. God doesn't make mistakes.

Though tongue-in-cheek, I suspect that's spot-on. If one already believes that God possesses the attribute of truthfulness and that he is directly or indirectly responsible for the transmission of the content of Genesis, then evidence of the literal inaccuracy of Genesis does in fact become evidence for the idea that it Genesis was not intended to be taken literally.

[ceo_esq]

deleted double post

[ChristineR]

My comment was a little glib, but it is a fairly accurate statement of some people's attitude about Genesis. Genesis reads brilliantly as a symbolic text, BTW.

[Pauliesonne]

Here's the point I'm trying to make;

You " interpet " Genesis because you think it's anything BUT fiction!

[ceo_esq]

Here's the point I'm trying to make;

You " interpet " Genesis because you think it's anything BUT fiction!

I don't understand your point, then. Everyone who reads Genesis interprets it. It's a text. And are you addressing anyone in particular by "you", or did you mean it in a generic sense?

[Pauliesonne]

generic

[davefoc]

I have wondered what the various Jewish sects think of Genesis. And what has been the historical interpretation of Genesis by Judaism.

Obviously there's not going to be much information about what people thought about the Genesis mythology when it was first written down about 2500 years ago but Judaism has such a long tradition of writing it seems like there should be some pretty good information available about what people thought of Genesis as the time passed after it was written intially.

I have an uninformed feeling that Chritianity incorporated the Genesis stories into the Christianity and gave them more credibility than Judaism in general did. Perhaps that is not accurate though.

[Shevek-72]

That's a good question, but for the sake of accuracy, it should be pointed out that thinking Genesis should, at least to some extent, not be taken literally is the traditional Christian view, not the progressive one. It goes back at least to Origen in the early 3rd century. The Christian fundamentalist view is the relatively newfangled one.

Good point. BTW, what's the jewish tradition towards interpreting Genesis? I seem to remember having heard that jewish scholars regard it as a symbolc text for quite a while... Does anyone know more about that?

[David Swidler]

Offhand, I can point you to Nachmanides (AKA Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman of Spain), whose 13th-century commentary explicitly says the creation narrative is symbolic (his commentary is available in English, but I believe out of print).

There are also scattered Talmudic references and related material, such as a statement that there were worlds prior to our own that were destroyed.

I do find it interesting that many people assume that the symbolic interpretation came as a reaction to archaological evidence when in fact it preceded archaeology by quite a few centuries.

[drkitten]

Then WHAT reason is there for those so-called progressive christians to think that Genesis shoud'nt be taken litterally?!?

Reason guided by intelligence.

[cpolk]

but literally?

It is hard to argue. I am reading the English translations, so arguing on linguistics, I cannot say if a "day" used in Hebraic Genesis is the correct sense when translated.

Scientifically speaking, we judge a "day" as to be roughly the time it takes the moon to orbit the Earth, and a "year" to roughly be the Earth's revolution around the Sun. In God's creation at Genesis, there was no Earth, Moon, or Sun to start off with, so it is hard to say if it is the same as a "day" as we now know it.

A day could be a million years, and each day of Genesis could metaphorically speak of the period of time when God performed each task rather than a standardized period of time.